It seems to me that the 1st amendment actually protects us from the Govenment, not from each other. The same seems to be true of the 2nd, it was designed to protect us from the Govenrment getting out of control and attempting to control its Citizens. i belive it was created to give us (the Citizens) the opportunity to start over if need be.
***Both Amendments seem to be subject to Government regulation for some strange reason.

Another thought that has occured to me after leafing through this lengthy thread, is that the Law Enforcers are not really able to protect the Citizens. Isn't that the main and possibly only reason many of us have begun arming ourselves?

Another is that the majority of the 'Home Turf" Terrist Attacks are from our fellow Citizens, working on a smaller, basically unorganized project of their own choosing. Massive firepower wouldn't really be needed to stop them.

Just a personal thought process...I am not sure if our newly formed Terrorist Protection/Preventative Strategies are working or if the "outside (foriegn)Attackers" don't usually actually attack that often in the first place.

Finally....the last thing any of us needs is for a Government appointed Doctor to use his/her own personal oppinions to disqualify the population from being legally armed for self preservation.

Well according to Rastaman's requirement that I either have military training or wait until I am 23 and have adequate training, and money for a psych exam, I am just screwed for the next two years.

Rastaman, what about people who are unable to join the military for medical reasons and get military training ? I am a 21 year old with a pacemaker, and am unable to join the military or even become a firefighter or cop. Is the pacemaker my fault? Does it make me inherently less responsible because of a medical condition? Just food for thought, not everyone can live up to your standards.

Some people believe the rights elaborated on in the "Bill of Rights" is unconditional, but the fact is that it has always been conditional. As I stated before, each of the rights has certain conditions and limits behind it. Like you can speak out against government, but you cant threaten the President. When there is a condition or limitation, then it is most always because of a public safety or national security concern.

In certain states like Indiana and Alabama, they feel public safety is not effected by the ownership of guns, but in other states they feel it is effected and so conditions are placed upon ownership. It is up to each individual state to decide what conditions should be placed upon ownership in order to maintain public order.

RastaMan, if rights ascribed to individuals by the constitution could be modified by the states, we would never have had a Civil War. The south would simply have chosen to ignore the legislation that ultimately led to 13A, 14A, and 15A, and would never have felt the need to secede.

Since SCOTUS has decided that 2A is an individual right, and not a state's right, then your argument is flawed.

In American culture, government is seen as a necessary evil. Therefore, police officers are viewed as a necessary evil. We don't really want anyone around telling us what to do, how to act or regulating our behavior. However, we grudgingly recognize that we do need someone around to regulate.

No one hates police officers per say...they just hate the fact there is someone around regulating their behavior. The American Revolution was not really about an income tax of 12% or about buying tea, it was because the British were telling the colonists what to do, what to buy and how they should act. No one likes that.

So distrusting government agents of any kind is the very foundation of American life. It is "us" vs "them" because thats how its always been since the founding of the country. If it were not "us" vs "them" then we would be called British or even Communist. Anyone who works for the government has to expect some pushback from whatever citizens they deal with and manage the animosity the best they can. The animosity, keep in mind, is nothing personal. Its just that Americans have become used to doing things like dumping tea in the harbor or open demonstrations. Americans really dislike government.

Rastaman, I suggest you read the preamble to the Bill of Rights to better understand the founding father's intent:

Quote:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

Oversimplification : The BOR is a list of specific rights that the gov't is not supposed to be able to touch, not a list of things we can or can not do.

__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.

Well I know I'll probably get a lot of flak for this but I don't think allowing students to carry concealed weapons on college campuses when improve the situation. As horrible as these school shootings are they are very rare and I believe that if numerous students started carrying around firearms you would have even more students being killed in fights. Not all college students are immature but enough of them are that I think it would be a bigger issue having so many people armed in a place where tons of people are drinking. Even if everyone was armed what's to stop someone from trying to kill numerous people with explosives or some other means that armed citizens wouldn't be able to stop?

Every one of us who had L/E experience were opposed to allowing students or any non L/E to carry weapons anywhere on the university grounds

I call BS on this one, maybe in your little tight nit group, but as a whole, I don’t believe it, not from my experiences with LE officers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClayInTx
A 21 year old in the military is in a situation where his sergeant is watching over him

Man, you sure don’t know much about the military do you.

Quote:

What's a "shave - tail"?

A 2nd LT. Contrary to some beliefs here, he’s in charge of the sgts, not the other way around. Sure, he’s issued a plt sgt for guidance but he’s still in charge.

Careful about coming down on Shave Tails, it could bite you; I was an E-7 when I went to OCS.

Quote:

There is a big difference between an 18-22 year old soldier and an 18-22 year old college student.

The soldier has at least 8 weeks of training. The military conducted at least a basic background check on them. During the 8 weeks of training, the folks doing the training are observing and closely monitoring the soldiers. The soldiers carry weapons in an environment with other people supervising and managing them closely.

It appears another one doesn’t know much about the military. Soldiers are taught to think and act on their own. Some have even been known to attend colleges……..heaven forbid.

Quote:

The soldier carrying the carbine would probably along with a greater unit and chain of command. There would be several layers of supervision and control of that person carrying the carbine…….The person carrying the 1911 operates without any supervision or control. Thus, the person carrying the 1911 has to be more responsible, diligent and better trained.

Hard to address this nonsense……….so I if I carry a 1911, I’m automatically more responsible than an 18 year old kid that our government sends off with a billion dollar Abrams…..or a sniper team sent out on its own for no telling how long.
Based on that logic, since I carry a 642 I should be a college professor.

Enough of pandering to RastaMan’s rants, back to the topic.

I have been keeping up with the threats regarding explosives (being an Ex-bomb tech). I personally believe that is the choice weapon of terrorist. Not that I plan on giving up my pocket pistol, I believe the threat of local, non organized bandits still exist.

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to deal with the issues in the first part of your post. But I'd like to tackle this:

Quote:

Even if everyone was armed what's to stop someone from trying to kill numerous people with explosives or some other means that armed citizens wouldn't be able to stop?

I'll answer this with a parable... a story. Here it is:

Once upon a time, an ill man went to a doctor. The doctor diagnosed the illness and prescribed medication, but the man refused to take the medication. "No way am I going to take that medicine," the man informed his doc. "You say it will only deal with my specific illness! What's the good in that?! I want to take a medicine that will prevent cancer, cure my athlete's foot, lower my blood pressure, fix my diabetes, and help me with my occasional ED. If your medicine won't do all of that, it's no good to me at all!"

45ACPShooter, there are several dozen campuses that allow CCW, and none have had any CCW-related problems. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has refuted all of your arguments, and has cited multiple credible sources for each argument...

Licensed carriers are a self-selecting group that have proven themselves more law-abiding and less criminally violent than the average population (5-14 times more so, actually).

As for explosives...yeah, carrying guns doesn't do much unless you can shoot the bomber before they detonate.

And there ARE "studies" about the tremendous dangers of allowing carry on college campuses. Those "studies" are the ongoing experiences of states that already allow it.

All the folks arguing that there will be blood in the streets, shootouts over parking spaces, wild west on the college campuses, etcetera ad infinitum and ad nauseum ... those folks sound exactly (and I do mean exactly) like the anti-gun people who once insisted that concealed carry in their own states would lead to the kinds of terrible, horrible things never seen in any other state that failed to prohibit concealed carry. While concealed carry laws were being passed in state after state, while such fearsome predictions continued not to come true in state after state, those anti-gun manipulators (& their willing tools allegedly on our side) consistently rejected the experiences of people in other states, in favor of repeatedly venting their own "feelings" about the subject: "Blood in the streets! Shootouts over parking spaces! Wild west!" Those people were wrong then and they're wrong now.

Respectfully, we don't need to fund a bunch of academic studies with tax dollars when we already have good data. The experience of pro-freedom states affirms that freedom isn't as dangerous as the anti-freedom brigade really wants it to be.

Look at the existing crime and accident data from states without ridiculous place-centered rules, and go from there. There are states and places where concealed carry on college campuses is already the law of the land. And of course we all hear about that every night on the news, as the shootouts over parking spaces and blood in the streets ... oh, wait, no we don't. That's because it has not been a problem in those states and those places.

People emotionally reject such data. That doesn't mean the data doesn't exist. I'm not saying "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment." I'm saying that there's no warrant for place-based firearms bans, based on the experiences of states without such bans.

(Incidentally, this is also the only sensible answer to anti-freedom people who insist that no one should own or be allowed to carry a firearm without extensive and expensive training. Just compare the crime and accident rates between training-required states and no-training-required states. If you want more laws regulating firearms ownership and use, but can't find a big gap in safety between states with more laws and states with fewer laws, then you are not on the correct side of the argument no matter what your emotions tell you.)

I agree that we haven't seen problems at the states with concealed carry laws in place on college campus.

I know that the argument I always hear is that the 21 yr. college age folks can't be trusted and the dorms are a risk. While we haven't seen trouble, if we do get a licensee shoot out in the dorms, that would be bad. Certainly, we do have bad behavior on campus.

As far as government funded studies - yeah, I'd like to get some money. Please write your legislators to send me some.

My point is that such laws are objected to (with practical concerns as compared to antigun hatred) on:

1. The risk issue based on young behavior
2. The training issue.

I'll take the heat on saying that if a person wants to carry to be a rampage interventionist you have a responsibility to train beyond buying a gun and shooting some paper once in awhile.

Should training be legally mandated? Complex issue - but I regard it as moral issue. If I'm going to shoot it out surrounded by innocents - I want to know that I tried to have reasonable ability.

Terrorists have always attacked soft targets. They attack them precisely for that reason. Its no different than any other criminal enterprise. Even the Fort Hood shooter knew he was entering a facility as the only armed person.

The goal of terrorism has always been to create an environment of fear. Knowing that you are never truly safe because they can strike at any moment is exactly what they want. Today's terrorists are not looking for a change in foreign policy. They simply want an impressive body count and they assume they will die as a result of their endeavor. Its that simple.

I completely disagree with most opinions regarding school security. Neatly packed children in locked rooms simply make too easy of a target and it also ensures that when armed responders DO arrive, they can't get to the kids. No, we don't want a shootout and crossfire with children in the hallways, but supposed experts really need to find better solutions.

In the 25 years that anti-terrorism has been part of my profession, I only know one thing: Every active shooter incident, rampaging psychopath or terrorist, that was stopped early was stopped by an armed person fighting back.

Mr Dish, I thought I would take a stab at some of your questions. The police have never been able to protect us. They respond to crimes. Unless we go back to having a beat cop walking your neighborhood 24/7, the deterent factor is minimal. I try to educate people on video surveillance as well. It won't prevent most crimes. It will only give you photos and video of the crime taking place. Thats good investigative assistance, but it won't prevent you from being murdered. but, yeah, they'll probably catch the guy who did it.

quote: "Another is that the majority of the 'Home Turf" Terrist Attacks are from our fellow Citizens, working on a smaller, basically unorganized project of their own choosing. Massive firepower wouldn't really be needed to stop them."

The majority of the home grown terrorism that has occured here in America has been relatively small scale from poorly trained, or untrained people. You are correct that stopping them isn't that difficult. The major problem among experts is that we don't understand why. They are here. They are trained. They are sleeping and nobody can figure out why they haven't committed more serious acts.

quote: "Just a personal thought process...I am not sure if our newly formed Terrorist Protection/Preventative Strategies are working or if the "outside (foriegn)Attackers" don't usually actually attack that often in the first place."

Attacks by foreign terrorist groups, transnational and international, has always been very rare here in the States. If they are going to go to all that trouble, they want to ensure it is effective and spectacular. No, our AT/CT policies aren't that effective as to be preventing them all. We've just been very lucky. Its also much easier for them to attack our interests elsewhere.

Glad Rastaman's around to set stuff straight. Otherwise us under-23 year old CWP holders would be rampaging through streets

Oh wait....

Just to add in a note: Montana (my state) issues CWP's at 18 years of age and up. Still so far, no CWP holders have done wrong, even allowing the "minors" to carry guns.

Then again, alot has to do with mentality. I take my CWP very seriously. I do my best to avoid trouble, actually conceal the gun, avoid even simple arguments,etc. I do alot of practice, weak-hand, moving,etc. to try and ensure that no spray&pray happens. Bystanders are as much a 3rd part of the whole equasion as the shooter and badguy.

However as for the OP's main topic: I ain't worried about a terrorist attack here in MT, maybe one of the larger cities but not in our pipsqueak towns. I do wonder about and train for a kook shooter.....Whitman? etc. type. Montana is the land of the best people on Earth AND the land of the most far-out kookies in existance.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.